In existing networks, a lot of prior knowledge and information, retrieved off-line, is used at the time of configuring different network elements, and this configuration then remains fairly static over time when the network is in operation. This prior knowledge consists of, to mention a few examples, the number of network elements in the network, the topology, the capacities of links and network elements, and QoS characteristics.
In future networking, a whole new dimension of dynamicity is expected. Ambient Networks (AN) is a new networking concept, which aims to enable the cooperation of heterogeneous networks that might belong to different operator or technology domains. This cooperation should be transparent, established on demand, and thus support “plug-and-play” operation, i.e., no previous configuration or negotiation should be required when forming the networks and how they inter-connect to each other.
Ambient Networks (AN) is an integrated project (IP) co-sponsored by the European Commission under the Information Society Technology (IST) priority under the 6th Framework Programme.
This new vision has been studied and developed in the Ambient Networks Project, which is part of the Wireless World Initiative. Ambient Networks is an integrated project co-sponsored by the European Commission under the Information Society Technology priority under the 6th Framework Programme. The project was started in 2004, and is now running in its second phase ending in 2007. It is envisaged that networks based on Ambient Network concepts can be operational starting approximately in the 2012-2015 timeframe, but possibly even earlier.
Of the many concepts that must be created or redefined in terms of Ambient Networking, routing is one of the most important, due to the foreseeable heterogeneous nature of these networks. One and the same network element might be installed and used, at a certain point in time, in a so called ad-hoc network environment, and then later moved and re-installed in a more fixed infrastructure type of network environment. For this type of operating environment, a multi-protocol approach to routing, where a different routing protocol could be used in different operating environments, seems plausible instead of a “one-size-fits-all” single protocol approach.
However, by allowing multiple routing protocols to operate simultaneously, and by implementing multiple protocols for different and even the same environment, an issue arises as to how to choose between the supported protocols so that the information can be routed as efficiently as possible inside and between network domains.
Two approaches that take into consideration a multi-protocol environment are described in [Clark, R., Ammar, M., Calvert, K., Protocol discovery in multiprotocol networks, published online in June 2006 in Mobile and Networks Applications Journal—accessible in http://www.springerlink.com/content/hn3241724163620x] and [F. Bamberger, P. Ford, and J. M. Wing, “Interoperability,” section in R&D for the NII: Technical Challenges, report edited by M. K. Vernon, E. D. Lazowska, and S. D. Personick, Interuniversity Communications Council, Inc. (EDUCOM), 1994].
In [Clark, R., Ammar, M., Calvert, K., Protocol discovery in multiprotocol networks, published online in June 2006 in Mobile and Networks Applications Journal—accessible in http://www.springerlink.com/content/hn3241724163620x], a protocol negotiation solution is proposed, that uses a directory service to distribute host information that can be used to identify which protocol must be used. If the directory is not available, the negotiation protocol can probe the communicating peer in order to discover a usable protocol. The approach used therefore mixes probing with directory services in order to support multi-protocol communication.
[F. Bamberger, P. Ford, and J. M. Wing, “Interoperability,” section in R&D for the NII: Technical Challenges, report edited by M. K. Vernon, E. D. Lazowska, and S. D. Personick, Interuniversity Communications Council, Inc. (EDUCOM), 1994] presents a survey about interoperability including the establishment of some goals to provide this interoperability. Heterogeneity is presented as a protocol mismatch or as interfaces mismatch. Three possible approaches to resolving or mitigating these problems are also presented.
The first one is the pair-wise approach, where it is supposed to exist a pair of translation functions when a component A wants to communicate with a component B. A pair of functions is needed due to the fact that there must be a translation between A to B messages, and also the inverse way. The second one is a common language approach, where a special language S is used and every component can communicate with it. It can be viewed as a single standard and this approach is the closest to XDNM. The last approach is the broker approach, a hybrid approach where there are third parties, each one understanding some subset of the many protocols used in environments.
[Paul E. McGlynn et al, “Feature negotiation protocol for a synchronous modem”, U.S. Pat. No. 4,953,210. Filing date: Feb. 22, 1990. Issue date: Aug. 28, 1990] and [Paul E. McGlynn et al, “Feature Negotiation Protocol and Dynamically Adjustable Retraining Sequence for a High Speed Half Duplex MODEM”, U.S. Pat. No. 4,905,282. Filing date: Oct. 19, 1988. Issue date: Feb. 27, 1990] are very specific and focus their proposals on a negotiation of some features between modems to improve the communication through the exchange of some supported features of each modem in order to select better features to the pairs involved in the process to offer a higher throughput or the maintenance of the initially decided configuration established in the modem's standard handshaking sequence.
In [Brian C. Edem et al, “Method and Apparatus Which allows Device with Multiple Protocol Capabilities to Configure to a Common Protocol Configuration”, U.S. Pat. No. 5,586,117. Filing date: Jun. 20, 1994. Issue date: Dec. 17, 1996], the authors specify a solution that allows elements in a local network to establish a common protocol to their communication. This document discloses an enforcement process between the two involved nodes. The basic operation of the proposed solution verifies the compatibility of the protocols used by each network element, and if it is the same no changes will be applied, but if each one has a different protocol in operation one of them will be selected as the higher priority station that will determine the protocol to be used. Another restriction is the fact that it only operates in CSMA/CD LANs.